In all honesty I've seen microtransactions (not P2W) that are as destructive to gameplay experiences as ones that are P2W. Look at the junk that BDO tries to pull like your character only having starting gear the entire game unless you buy a cosmetic. I would honestly pay 15 month to avoid that garbage and have a game that is actually fun and properly rewarding of my time, then to have everything throttled to convince me to buy convenience.
You realize NO mmo has a fully playable game just three years into development right?
It is the point.
If they had the funds to finance the entire project, why would they announce it without having anything to show for it and delay the process focusing on the kickstarter campaign, the store and the cosmetic packages?
As I explained above, if they had the funds they should have advanced in the development of the project and show it at a point where the main promoted game mechanics were polished enough to stand out.
Kickstarter campaigns, advance sales, cosmetic packages and exclusive content are for small groups of developers who do not have funds to get started.
In addition, as I already mentioned, not only the main mechanics are still absent but key factors such as the combat system and movement physics that is what is shown are still regular.
Sorry but your solution seems outrageous you are basically putting a cash shop behind a paywall
^ This.
Not sure if @Elder Soul is trolling or just like to make scatter-gun arguments. Either way I believe the cosmetics in the cash shop is more of a privilege for further supporting the game allowing people to show off exclusive content because they were there during the sale of the item and was in the position to get it. Having additional 'premium membership' fees to get access to all cosmetics would be horrible.
I dont know about others but I personally dont want a large amount of the player base running around with the same cosmetics. The ability to buy an exclusive skin for a premium is a privilege and a 'thank you' for further support towards the game at different stages throughout development and a subtle 'nod' or acknowledgement.
If you want all the skins save up
¨If you want all the skins save up ¨
It's not that I need to save...
- Cosmetic = 5usd.
- Pet = 15usd.
- Mount = 20usd.
- Vehicle = 25usd.
- Costume = 25usd.
- Building = 25usd.
This is common sense.
The price of a base game, the expansions and a monthly subscription make sense.
The sale of cosmetics does not.
Paying extra and with those values for content that is essential and one of the bases of every video game such as aesthetics and customization is what makes millions of players around the world continue in search of the holy grail of MMORPGs.
You realize NO mmo has a fully playable game just three years into development right?
It is the point.
If they had the funds to finance the entire project, why would they announce it without having anything to show for it and delay the process focusing on the kickstarter campaign, the store and the cosmetic packages?
As I explained above, if they had the funds they should have advanced in the development of the project and show it at a point where the main promoted game mechanics were polished enough to stand out.
Kickstarter campaigns, advance sales, cosmetic packages and exclusive content are for small groups of developers who do not have funds to get started.
In addition, as I already mentioned, not only the main mechanics are still absent but key factors such as the combat system and movement physics that is what is shown are still regular.
I’m not gonna go find the whole schpeel from Steven but the entire point of opening participation at the start of development rather than the very end of it was to get the community involved from the get-go. That’s the whole point.
You realize NO mmo has a fully playable game just three years into development right?
It is the point.
If they had the funds to finance the entire project, why would they announce it without having anything to show for it and delay the process focusing on the kickstarter campaign, the store and the cosmetic packages?
As I explained above, if they had the funds they should have advanced in the development of the project and show it at a point where the main promoted game mechanics were polished enough to stand out.
Kickstarter campaigns, advance sales, cosmetic packages and exclusive content are for small groups of developers who do not have funds to get started.
In addition, as I already mentioned, not only the main mechanics are still absent but key factors such as the combat system and movement physics that is what is shown are still regular.
I’m not gonna go find the whole schpeel from Steven but the entire point of opening participation at the start of development rather than the very end of it was to get the community involved from the get-go. That’s the whole point.
If you had read my last contributions you would have noticed that I comment on it and explain my point of view about it.
You realize NO mmo has a fully playable game just three years into development right?
It is the point.
If they had the funds to finance the entire project, why would they announce it without having anything to show for it and delay the process focusing on the kickstarter campaign, the store and the cosmetic packages?
As I explained above, if they had the funds they should have advanced in the development of the project and show it at a point where the main promoted game mechanics were polished enough to stand out.
Kickstarter campaigns, advance sales, cosmetic packages and exclusive content are for small groups of developers who do not have funds to get started.
In addition, as I already mentioned, not only the main mechanics are still absent but key factors such as the combat system and movement physics that is what is shown are still regular.
I’m not gonna go find the whole schpeel from Steven but the entire point of opening participation at the start of development rather than the very end of it was to get the community involved from the get-go. That’s the whole point.
If you had read my last contributions you would have noticed that I comment on it and explain my point of view about it.
As I explained above, if they had the funds they should have advanced in the development of the project and show it at a point where the main promoted game mechanics were polished enough to stand out.
You made it pretty clear you believe they shouldn’t have advertised until the game is mostly finished, and at that point those core system are no longer malleable to change.
You realize NO mmo has a fully playable game just three years into development right?
It is the point.
If they had the funds to finance the entire project, why would they announce it without having anything to show for it and delay the process focusing on the kickstarter campaign, the store and the cosmetic packages?
As I explained above, if they had the funds they should have advanced in the development of the project and show it at a point where the main promoted game mechanics were polished enough to stand out.
Kickstarter campaigns, advance sales, cosmetic packages and exclusive content are for small groups of developers who do not have funds to get started.
In addition, as I already mentioned, not only the main mechanics are still absent but key factors such as the combat system and movement physics that is what is shown are still regular.
I’m not gonna go find the whole schpeel from Steven but the entire point of opening participation at the start of development rather than the very end of it was to get the community involved from the get-go. That’s the whole point.
If you had read my last contributions you would have noticed that I comment on it and explain my point of view about it.
As I explained above, if they had the funds they should have advanced in the development of the project and show it at a point where the main promoted game mechanics were polished enough to stand out.
You made it pretty clear you believe they shouldn’t have advertised until the game is mostly finished, and at that point those core system are no longer malleable to change.
AOC: Project without the need for funds to complete the development of all the basic ideas and concepts that it proposes to revolutionize the genre.
This means that no type of kickstarter or foundation program was necessary since the necessary funds were available.
However, with the premise of involving the community, the kickstarter program was created with packages of up to 10k usd granting exclusive objects, thus creating a gap between the community in the future.
At the same time it was established that the funds raised would be destined to the creation of additional content and not to the development of the original proposal.
In this way, a project with secured financing instead of developing its product and offering it began by raising extra funds from future consumers of the game, even before showing the bases of its proposal in operation.
This strategy opened the door to the micropayment store and the sale of cosmetic objects, all before having a playable and polished version to show to its consumers.
If we take the premise of the campaign and its purpose of involving potential clients in the project, this managed to attract about 19,576 patrons.
If we take the number of potential users for the first year (raised by other users in the last comments of this thread)
of 500k it can be deduced that they managed to attract 3.9% of said base.
A system of separation from the community was created (those who have and those who have not) collecting funds that were not necessary for the full development of the game and all for 3.9% of its future consumers.
It is obvious, that was only the beginning, the entrance door to the pay store and the sale of cosmetics.
Three years after this start, the sale of packages increased, this demand the creation of new dedicated and exclusive cosmetic models for that small initial % (plus those that were added from the web store), which implies labor time, resources and dedicated facilities.
Three years after this start, they still do not offer a playable version that shows all the promised game mechanics in operation.
Three years after this start and still fundamental aspects such as the combat system and the physics of movement remain unpolished.
From my perspective, taking into account that they had the necessary funds, they should have developed the product to achieve a version polished and complete enough to show to the public and with this achieve the effect of attracting consumers.
The factor of involving the community should have been from a participatory approach and not from billing.
The model should have been, payment of the game and future expansions and mandatory recurring subscription without any additional payments or store.
The way to sustain and finance a project is by attracting as many users as possible and maintaining them.
The way to attract and keep them is with a quality product that respects the different styles of players, not with microtransactions, exclusive packages and hype.
I understand that the creation of a store and sale of cosmetics is seen as a way to generate extra income to maintain the game and finance future content, but from my perspective this alienates a large number of players who do not feel comfortable with this type of models which in the long run ends up being counterproductive.
¨However, with the premise of involving the community, the kickstarter program was created¨
You can read the rest, it's all explained there.
0
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You realize NO mmo has a fully playable game just three years into development right?
It is the point.
If they had the funds to finance the entire project, why would they announce it without having anything to show for it and delay the process focusing on the kickstarter campaign, the store and the cosmetic packages?
As I explained above, if they had the funds they should have advanced in the development of the project and show it at a point where the main promoted game mechanics were polished enough to stand out.
Kickstarter campaigns, advance sales, cosmetic packages and exclusive content are for small groups of developers who do not have funds to get started.
In addition, as I already mentioned, not only the main mechanics are still absent but key factors such as the combat system and movement physics that is what is shown are still regular.
The Kickstarter funding was used to add additional content to the game. The fully funded project people keep referring was called the minimum viable product that was funded prior to Kickstarter. Steven wanted to add additional features such as enhanced naval combat, the Underrealm (without this, the race living underground would be added in a future expansion), parlor games, and other features.
You should browse the features on Kickstarter to see all of the additional features people paid for that you can enjoy. Do know that if any of these would delay the approximate scheduled release date, then they will be delayed until after the release of the game.
Why do you guys keep poking this guy? He is fighting a losing argument.
It is not a lost argument.
The fact that some perceive that I am the only one with this vision does not mean that I am.
There are notes written by entertainment journalists, videos uploaded to YouTube, threads on Reddit and many other platforms on the social networks where this line of thought is shared.
I shared some of these contributions during the development of this thread.
Users who support this thought and are not attracted to what is proposed hardly bother to come here to express it.
My contribution here is an opportunity for you to see something that exists and is real, nothing more.
You realize NO mmo has a fully playable game just three years into development right?
It is the point.
If they had the funds to finance the entire project, why would they announce it without having anything to show for it and delay the process focusing on the kickstarter campaign, the store and the cosmetic packages?
As I explained above, if they had the funds they should have advanced in the development of the project and show it at a point where the main promoted game mechanics were polished enough to stand out.
Kickstarter campaigns, advance sales, cosmetic packages and exclusive content are for small groups of developers who do not have funds to get started.
In addition, as I already mentioned, not only the main mechanics are still absent but key factors such as the combat system and movement physics that is what is shown are still regular.
The Kickstarter funding was used to add additional content to the game. The fully funded project people keep referring was called the minimum viable product that was funded prior to Kickstarter. Steven wanted to add additional features such as enhanced naval combat, the Underrealm (without this, the race living underground would be added in a future expansion), parlor games, and other features.
You should browse the features on Kickstarter to see all of the additional features people paid for that you can enjoy. Do know that if any of these would delay the approximate scheduled release date, then they will be delayed until after the release of the game.
There is no point in creating a kickstarter campaign to engage people and raise money for additional content when the main content is not even in an advanced stage of development.
Even 3 years later and the content shown is scarce compared to what was proposed, however the process began with the promotion of packages of up to 10k usd with exclusive content for additional content?
0
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2020
@Elder Soul
You apparently have some advanced degree in game design that guides your knowledge of the best time to start building game systems into an engine...
I know I do not, so if you do then I will defer to your opinion. However, assuming that you do not, you really don't know the best time to build systems and instead only know what you like.
The kickstarter ended up generating 3 million in addition to the 30 million already in place. 10% additional funding for the game is not something that IS should ignore. They have game designers, economists, and financial professionals figuring out how to make this project run. I am inclined to give them a the benefit of the doubt until they actually deserve such doubts.
Also, I am not sure where you came up with content is scarce compared to what was proposed. Did you find some detailed road map content development? Because they have been meeting almost all deadlines that have actually been announced for years straight. I have occasionally seen people claim earlier release dates that were never announced, but that is all I have found people site.
@Elder Soul
You apparently have some advanced degree in game design that guides your knowledge of the best time to start building game systems into an engine...
I know I do not, so if you do then I will defer to your opinion. However, assuming that you do not, you really don't know the best time to build systems and instead only know what you like.
The kickstarter ended up generating 3 million in addition to the 30 million already in place. 10% additional funding for the game is not something that IS should ignore. They have game designers, economists, and financial professionals figuring out how to make this project run. I am inclined to give them a the benefit of the doubt until they actually deserve such doubts.
Also, I am not sure where you came up with content is scarce compared to what was proposed. Did you find some detailed road map content development? Because they have been meeting almost all deadlines that have actually been announced for years straight. I have occasionally seen people claim earlier release dates that were never announced, but that is all I have found people site.
Regarding my vision on the development, what I say is that those 3 million generated with the kickstarter I believe that do not compensate for the potential losses produced in the future by the incorporation of exclusive cosmetic objects and a micropayment store.
17k users paying 15 usd per month, in a year it is 3060000 usd.
Do you think that there are not 17k potential users as clients who are against the sale of cosmetics and micropayments?
At least 3 million lost the first year, 6 for the second, etc.
Regarding the order of development, my interpretation is to use the funds that were already had to achieve the base of the proposed game in a robust way, announce in beta stage to capture attention and finish polishing details by showing the greatest amount of mechanics in operation , go to market without a store or micropayments, attracting as many users as possible, finance the development of new content by way of expansions (in this case with the money generated by attracting more customers by not incorporating micropayments and a store).
Model: purchase of base game and expansions, monthly subscription.
In the case of projecting the need to increase billing, generate donation packages of moderate value without offering exclusive items and compensating contributors with thanks, perhaps a personalized courtesy email and a segment in the forums for their mention.
When exclusive objects are incorporated, the community is segmented, it is not joined and the act of wanting to support is diminished.
Does this guarantee success?
Not.
No model guarantees success.
Success is guaranteed by the quality of the product offered and if it has the capacity to satisfy demand.
Why do you guys keep poking this guy? He is fighting a losing argument.
It is not a lost argument.
The fact that some perceive that I am the only one with this vision does not mean that I am.
There are notes written by entertainment journalists, videos uploaded to YouTube, threads on Reddit and many other platforms on the social networks where this line of thought is shared.
I shared some of these contributions during the development of this thread.
Users who support this thought and are not attracted to what is proposed hardly bother to come here to express it.
My contribution here is an opportunity for you to see something that exists and is real, nothing more.
Less users, less consumption, less money.
I know there are plenty of other's like you. There are plenty of people out there that think the world's flat too, doesn't make them right.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
Why do you guys keep poking this guy? He is fighting a losing argument.
It is not a lost argument.
The fact that some perceive that I am the only one with this vision does not mean that I am.
There are notes written by entertainment journalists, videos uploaded to YouTube, threads on Reddit and many other platforms on the social networks where this line of thought is shared.
I shared some of these contributions during the development of this thread.
Users who support this thought and are not attracted to what is proposed hardly bother to come here to express it.
My contribution here is an opportunity for you to see something that exists and is real, nothing more.
Less users, less consumption, less money.
I know there are plenty of other's like you. There are plenty of people out there that think the world's flat too, doesn't make them right.
The difference is that the thinking of flat-earthers does not affect the billing of a video game.
The thinking of people against the sale of cosmetics and micropayments yes.
Why do you guys keep poking this guy? He is fighting a losing argument.
It is not a lost argument.
The fact that some perceive that I am the only one with this vision does not mean that I am.
There are notes written by entertainment journalists, videos uploaded to YouTube, threads on Reddit and many other platforms on the social networks where this line of thought is shared.
I shared some of these contributions during the development of this thread.
Users who support this thought and are not attracted to what is proposed hardly bother to come here to express it.
My contribution here is an opportunity for you to see something that exists and is real, nothing more.
Less users, less consumption, less money.
I know there are plenty of other's like you. There are plenty of people out there that think the world's flat too, doesn't make them right.
The difference is that the thinking of flat-earthers does not affect the billing of a video game.
The thinking of people against the sale of cosmetics and micropayments yes.
You are right that is the only difference, your view is just as misinformed. Glad that we came to agreement.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
Why do you guys keep poking this guy? He is fighting a losing argument.
It is not a lost argument.
The fact that some perceive that I am the only one with this vision does not mean that I am.
There are notes written by entertainment journalists, videos uploaded to YouTube, threads on Reddit and many other platforms on the social networks where this line of thought is shared.
I shared some of these contributions during the development of this thread.
Users who support this thought and are not attracted to what is proposed hardly bother to come here to express it.
My contribution here is an opportunity for you to see something that exists and is real, nothing more.
Less users, less consumption, less money.
I know there are plenty of other's like you. There are plenty of people out there that think the world's flat too, doesn't make them right.
The difference is that the thinking of flat-earthers does not affect the billing of a video game.
The thinking of people against the sale of cosmetics and micropayments yes.
You are right that is the only difference, your view is just as misinformed. Glad that we came to agreement.
I don't think I used the word "only" but I give you a like for agreeing.
0
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Do you think that there are not 17k potential users as clients who are against the sale of cosmetics and micropayments?
...my interpretation is to use the funds that were already had to achieve the base of the proposed game in a robust way...
..finance the development of new content by way of expansions (in this case with the money generated by attracting more customers by not incorporating micropayments and a store).
In the case of projecting the need to increase billing, generate donation packages of moderate value without offering exclusive items and compensating contributors with thanks, perhaps a personalized courtesy email and a segment in the forums for their mention.
.
Is there 17k users against cosmetics. Sure, I would prefer that cosmetics were not offered. However, it is available it's not gonna change. I'll just use them. Being against it does does not remove the customer. The clearly overwhelming success of cosmetics across many games indicates that having a cosmetic shop is far more profitable than not.
Your interpretation of using funds would be nice from our point of view but does not seem necessary to run a game and IS will choose what they think is most beneficial.
Under the current model, we do not pay for expansions.
As far as the exclusive items does, this game will be heavily involved in exclusive items that are gone after a time. Both in game and out.
None of this really matters. It is all a matter of preference for billing. Your initial ideas of other payment systems seem interesting; however, in the end IS will probably choose the option that is most likely to provide the highest returns. While Steven wants to make a great game, I am sure that he also wants a good return.
Arguing directly against the cash shop by trying to project it as a low return is unlikely to work. Whenever many companies copy one another, you can be sure that there is a lot of profit involved. That is what has happened with the cosmetic shop.
In addition to what the current pay model is (which is payment of a monthly payment of $15), you can also opt for access to a wide array of cosmetic items through multiple options.
The options are as follows.
1.) $15 per month, no additional investments.
Base game, with potential to access to cosmetics developed in other portions of the game.
Sets reference point
Conforms to current pay model
2.) $15 per month, additional investment for specific cosmetics.
Within reasonable cost for players with additional income who wish to purchase cosmetics.
Does not offer an in game advantage over players who do not pay additional costs.
Conforms to current pay model
3.) $15 per month, additional box model styled investment (one time 60).
Within reasonable cost for players planning on invest a large amount of money into option 2.
Permanently unlocks access to a large amount of cosmetics available from option 2, but does not give access to everything available in the cosmetic shop.
Does not discard current pay model, but offers additional options.
4.) $20 per month, additional box model styled investment.
Intended for players who plan for long term investment into the game, by paying for future cosmetic content.
Unlocks access to all of the cosmetic store, without the need for additional investment.
Would not be unreasonable for anyone looking into option 2 or option 3.
Is this correct? I had a hard time working through the logistics of this.
If you are able to buy cosmetics that way wouldnt that make the cosmetics more common and lose value?
You would just be buying something that is a valuable as any gear from the game. For me at least that would make me not buy it since it wouldnt mean anything.
1
Options
NelsonRebelMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If you are able to buy cosmetics that way wouldnt that make the cosmetics more common and lose value?
You would just be buying something that is a valuable as any gear from the game. For me at least that would make me not buy it since it wouldnt mean anything.
Thats exactly what he wants.
He believes the cosmetics should be cheap
and easy to aquire that severly lowers Intrepids Revenue. Because he wants to change the business model of the MMO world. While ignoring the costs Intrepid has from all that really goes into a companies costs to run an MMO.
I believe they should be making money off of it as it keeps the sub cost down, keeps their employee salaries high for quality people, and Steven has already mentioned there will be ingame equivalent different "meshes" of most items in the store already available ingame, plus you're already going to have unique armors and costumes in the game.
I just dont see the point in lowering their revenue when it's required to maintain a healthy employee source and keep good people. An MMO is nothing without good workers, and good workers/coders/designers/combat devs are all attracted by good working conditions and a good salary.
I hate cash shops. I rather play a higher month sub to have access to all items in game but it will never go away now as they make too much money with it. IMHO cash shop items should drop in-game too so players who want to earn them can.
I agree, and so does Intrepid.
Every item in the cash shop will be available in game, just in different color variations.
I stopped playing SWTOR MMO after a few months when they release the cash shop. All the cool looking stuff was in the cash shop and nothing nice was added in the game. Went back into the game two years later still the same way. Part of getting the cool skins is getting out there with your friends and grinding for it. Im glad Intrepid are putting cash shop stuff in game too.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Why do you guys keep poking this guy? He is fighting a losing argument.
Humoring mostly.
@Elder Soul is cordial and sometimes cleverly funny. I enjoy this thread even though I pretty much think everything of substance has been said already.
If this was a real life debate we’d be at the stage where we were done with serious business and are now getting drinks together.
Do you think that there are not 17k potential users as clients who are against the sale of cosmetics and micropayments?
...my interpretation is to use the funds that were already had to achieve the base of the proposed game in a robust way...
..finance the development of new content by way of expansions (in this case with the money generated by attracting more customers by not incorporating micropayments and a store).
In the case of projecting the need to increase billing, generate donation packages of moderate value without offering exclusive items and compensating contributors with thanks, perhaps a personalized courtesy email and a segment in the forums for their mention.
.
Is there 17k users against cosmetics. Sure, I would prefer that cosmetics were not offered. However, it is available it's not gonna change. I'll just use them. Being against it does does not remove the customer. The clearly overwhelming success of cosmetics across many games indicates that having a cosmetic shop is far more profitable than not.
Your interpretation of using funds would be nice from our point of view but does not seem necessary to run a game and IS will choose what they think is most beneficial.
Under the current model, we do not pay for expansions.
As far as the exclusive items does, this game will be heavily involved in exclusive items that are gone after a time. Both in game and out.
None of this really matters. It is all a matter of preference for billing. Your initial ideas of other payment systems seem interesting; however, in the end IS will probably choose the option that is most likely to provide the highest returns. While Steven wants to make a great game, I am sure that he also wants a good return.
Arguing directly against the cash shop by trying to project it as a low return is unlikely to work. Whenever many companies copy one another, you can be sure that there is a lot of profit involved. That is what has happened with the cosmetic shop.
I understand this but my intention is not to propose the model that generates the most profits but a model that generates profits without abusing a segment of the player base.
Microtransactions and the sale of cosmetics is highly profitable precisely because it seeks to fully exploit a real need, the capacity for visual customization within the game.
That is why it makes me laugh when they say that cosmetics do not matter in the gaming experience and that they are not a way to win, on the contrary it is precisely this that makes it so profitable.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Do you think that there are not 17k potential users as clients who are against the sale of cosmetics and micropayments?
...my interpretation is to use the funds that were already had to achieve the base of the proposed game in a robust way...
..finance the development of new content by way of expansions (in this case with the money generated by attracting more customers by not incorporating micropayments and a store).
In the case of projecting the need to increase billing, generate donation packages of moderate value without offering exclusive items and compensating contributors with thanks, perhaps a personalized courtesy email and a segment in the forums for their mention.
.
Is there 17k users against cosmetics. Sure, I would prefer that cosmetics were not offered. However, it is available it's not gonna change. I'll just use them. Being against it does does not remove the customer. The clearly overwhelming success of cosmetics across many games indicates that having a cosmetic shop is far more profitable than not.
Your interpretation of using funds would be nice from our point of view but does not seem necessary to run a game and IS will choose what they think is most beneficial.
Under the current model, we do not pay for expansions.
As far as the exclusive items does, this game will be heavily involved in exclusive items that are gone after a time. Both in game and out.
None of this really matters. It is all a matter of preference for billing. Your initial ideas of other payment systems seem interesting; however, in the end IS will probably choose the option that is most likely to provide the highest returns. While Steven wants to make a great game, I am sure that he also wants a good return.
Arguing directly against the cash shop by trying to project it as a low return is unlikely to work. Whenever many companies copy one another, you can be sure that there is a lot of profit involved. That is what has happened with the cosmetic shop.
I understand this but my intention is not to propose the model that generates the most profits but a model that generates profits without abusing a segment of the player base.
Microtransactions and the sale of cosmetics is highly profitable precisely because it seeks to fully exploit a real need, the capacity for visual customization within the game.
That is why it makes me laugh when they say that cosmetics do not matter in the gaming experience and that they are not a way to win, on the contrary it is precisely this that makes it so profitable.
Here’s a question... Hypothetically, let’s say there is a hat that costs $25 in the store. You could get an identical hat in the game through a simple 5 minute quest that involves just running from one place to another, an errand essentially. The only difference is that it’s a different shade of brown, dark beige instead of a chocolate color. Would you consider that P2W?
This isn’t a “gotcha” question or trying to in any way invalidate your opinion. I’m genuinely curious where you draw the line at what you consider P2W.
Me, I think paying for something you can pretty much get for no cost and little effort to be foolishness and/or laziness. Even the completionist who needs to have “everything” is somewhat foolish. But if someone wants to throw away hard cash for nothing, bless them, they’re funding my hobby.
Do you think that there are not 17k potential users as clients who are against the sale of cosmetics and micropayments?
...my interpretation is to use the funds that were already had to achieve the base of the proposed game in a robust way...
..finance the development of new content by way of expansions (in this case with the money generated by attracting more customers by not incorporating micropayments and a store).
In the case of projecting the need to increase billing, generate donation packages of moderate value without offering exclusive items and compensating contributors with thanks, perhaps a personalized courtesy email and a segment in the forums for their mention.
.
Is there 17k users against cosmetics. Sure, I would prefer that cosmetics were not offered. However, it is available it's not gonna change. I'll just use them. Being against it does does not remove the customer. The clearly overwhelming success of cosmetics across many games indicates that having a cosmetic shop is far more profitable than not.
Your interpretation of using funds would be nice from our point of view but does not seem necessary to run a game and IS will choose what they think is most beneficial.
Under the current model, we do not pay for expansions.
As far as the exclusive items does, this game will be heavily involved in exclusive items that are gone after a time. Both in game and out.
None of this really matters. It is all a matter of preference for billing. Your initial ideas of other payment systems seem interesting; however, in the end IS will probably choose the option that is most likely to provide the highest returns. While Steven wants to make a great game, I am sure that he also wants a good return.
Arguing directly against the cash shop by trying to project it as a low return is unlikely to work. Whenever many companies copy one another, you can be sure that there is a lot of profit involved. That is what has happened with the cosmetic shop.
I understand this but my intention is not to propose the model that generates the most profits but a model that generates profits without abusing a segment of the player base.
Microtransactions and the sale of cosmetics is highly profitable precisely because it seeks to fully exploit a real need, the capacity for visual customization within the game.
That is why it makes me laugh when they say that cosmetics do not matter in the gaming experience and that they are not a way to win, on the contrary it is precisely this that makes it so profitable.
Here’s a question... Hypothetically, let’s say there is a hat that costs $25 in the store. You could get an identical hat in the game through a simple 5 minute quest that involves just running from one place to another, an errand essentially. The only difference is that it’s a different shade of brown, dark beige instead of a chocolate color. Would you consider that P2W?
This isn’t a “gotcha” question or trying to in any way invalidate your opinion. I’m genuinely curious where you draw the line at what you consider P2W.
Me, I think paying for something you can pretty much get for no cost and little effort to be foolishness and/or laziness. Even the completionist who needs to have “everything” is somewhat foolish. But if someone wants to throw away hard cash for nothing, bless them, they’re funding my hobby.
First, it must be taken into account that certain cosmetics are exclusive (kickstarter and store packages) and have a temporal time for sale, then they are no longer available, in these cases I doubt that identical versions or with color variations can be obtained within the game (if I'm wrong you can correct).
Regarding variations in colors or small differences due to added effects, the following situation is generated:
- What is the most attractive or convenient version?
- Which one best suits the need to create a certain stereotype (in the character, pet, mount, house, caravan) either for taste, role, etc.
- The simple fact that they differ in certain aspects makes them a different version, something key for collectors.
The answer is that depending on each one, the paid version can be the most attractive and of course, in the case of collectors, reaching all the variants is a goal.
Having these variants behind the need to buy packs (to purchase content and unlock the corresponding Tier for individual future purchases) is a major limitation in the quest to complete the gaming experience and gain the feeling of success.
Finally, clarify that when I mean that all content should be available to everyone without additional payments, I do not mean wanting to have everything but to have the ability to access everything.
The ability to access is the door to achieve what you want through merit, effort and dedication within the game, this does not necessarily mean that everyone can have everything, only those who successfully exceed the objectives set to achieve these contents.
0
Options
NelsonRebelMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Why do you guys keep poking this guy? He is fighting a losing argument.
Humoring mostly.
@Elder Soul is cordial and sometimes cleverly funny. I enjoy this thread even though I pretty much think everything of substance has been said already.
If this was a real life debate we’d be at the stage where we were done with serious business and are now getting drinks together.
I agree. Just because I 100% disagree with him on this issue, doesn't mean I have to dislike someone.
Sadly thats sometimes rare nowadays on the web. Thankfully though these forums have it far more commonly.
Just dont check the dps meter thread lol
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Do you think that there are not 17k potential users as clients who are against the sale of cosmetics and micropayments?
...my interpretation is to use the funds that were already had to achieve the base of the proposed game in a robust way...
..finance the development of new content by way of expansions (in this case with the money generated by attracting more customers by not incorporating micropayments and a store).
In the case of projecting the need to increase billing, generate donation packages of moderate value without offering exclusive items and compensating contributors with thanks, perhaps a personalized courtesy email and a segment in the forums for their mention.
.
Is there 17k users against cosmetics. Sure, I would prefer that cosmetics were not offered. However, it is available it's not gonna change. I'll just use them. Being against it does does not remove the customer. The clearly overwhelming success of cosmetics across many games indicates that having a cosmetic shop is far more profitable than not.
Your interpretation of using funds would be nice from our point of view but does not seem necessary to run a game and IS will choose what they think is most beneficial.
Under the current model, we do not pay for expansions.
As far as the exclusive items does, this game will be heavily involved in exclusive items that are gone after a time. Both in game and out.
None of this really matters. It is all a matter of preference for billing. Your initial ideas of other payment systems seem interesting; however, in the end IS will probably choose the option that is most likely to provide the highest returns. While Steven wants to make a great game, I am sure that he also wants a good return.
Arguing directly against the cash shop by trying to project it as a low return is unlikely to work. Whenever many companies copy one another, you can be sure that there is a lot of profit involved. That is what has happened with the cosmetic shop.
I understand this but my intention is not to propose the model that generates the most profits but a model that generates profits without abusing a segment of the player base.
Microtransactions and the sale of cosmetics is highly profitable precisely because it seeks to fully exploit a real need, the capacity for visual customization within the game.
That is why it makes me laugh when they say that cosmetics do not matter in the gaming experience and that they are not a way to win, on the contrary it is precisely this that makes it so profitable.
Here’s a question... Hypothetically, let’s say there is a hat that costs $25 in the store. You could get an identical hat in the game through a simple 5 minute quest that involves just running from one place to another, an errand essentially. The only difference is that it’s a different shade of brown, dark beige instead of a chocolate color. Would you consider that P2W?
This isn’t a “gotcha” question or trying to in any way invalidate your opinion. I’m genuinely curious where you draw the line at what you consider P2W.
Me, I think paying for something you can pretty much get for no cost and little effort to be foolishness and/or laziness. Even the completionist who needs to have “everything” is somewhat foolish. But if someone wants to throw away hard cash for nothing, bless them, they’re funding my hobby.
First, it must be taken into account that certain cosmetics are exclusive (kickstarter and store packages) and have a temporal time for sale, then they are no longer available, in these cases I doubt that identical versions or with color variations can be obtained within the game (if I'm wrong you can correct).
Intrepid has made it clear on multiple occasions that color variations will not be uncommon on exclusive items. They’ve already done this actually, when they did the summer crowdfunding after Kickstarter ended they included some recolored versions of cosmetics from KS, and explained that such a thing will happen. My example of “a different shade of brown” was a bit extreme, maybe, but it’s something I’ve seen in other games. For example example I play Secret World Legends and it’s not unusual to have cosmetics for sale that are just a different shade of the same item in the same color as you could earn from achievements in the game.
Regarding variations in colors or small differences due to added effects, the following situation is generated:
- What is the most attractive or convenient version?
There is no correct answer to a subjective question. If one item is black and another is gold, some people will say the black one is cool and the gold is tacky. Others will say the gold one is amazing and the black one is boring. Also, some might say it’s more work to keep an eye on the store to not miss limited exclusive items, others will say it’s more work to earn it in game even if it’s an achievement anyone can do at any time. It might be more convenient for a person with extra cash to just buy it but another person finds it more convenient to work on it in game than save up the real life money to buy it.
- Which one best suits the need to create a certain stereotype (in the character, pet, mount, house, caravan) either for taste, role, etc.
That applies equally to all cosmetics since anyone can be going for any kind of look.
- The simple fact that they differ in certain aspects makes them a different version, something key for collectors.
The answer is that depending on each one, the paid version can be the most attractive and of course, in the case of collectors, reaching all the variants is a goal.
Having these variants behind the need to buy packs (to purchase content and unlock the corresponding Tier for individual future purchases) is a major limitation in the quest to complete the gaming experience and gain the feeling of success.
Finally, clarify that when I mean that all content should be available to everyone without additional payments, I do not mean wanting to have everything but to have the ability to access everything.
The ability to access is the door to achieve what you want through merit, effort and dedication within the game, this does not necessarily mean that everyone can have everything, only those who successfully exceed the objectives set to achieve these contents.
Again, collectors make their own problems. Unless there is some kind of title or achievement promoted within the game for collecting, it’s ridiculous to call that P2W. You can’t make up your own win conditions and then whine about them. It’s meaningless.
Comments
It is the point.
If they had the funds to finance the entire project, why would they announce it without having anything to show for it and delay the process focusing on the kickstarter campaign, the store and the cosmetic packages?
As I explained above, if they had the funds they should have advanced in the development of the project and show it at a point where the main promoted game mechanics were polished enough to stand out.
Kickstarter campaigns, advance sales, cosmetic packages and exclusive content are for small groups of developers who do not have funds to get started.
In addition, as I already mentioned, not only the main mechanics are still absent but key factors such as the combat system and movement physics that is what is shown are still regular.
¨If you want all the skins save up
It's not that I need to save...
- Cosmetic = 5usd.
- Pet = 15usd.
- Mount = 20usd.
- Vehicle = 25usd.
- Costume = 25usd.
- Building = 25usd.
This is common sense.
The price of a base game, the expansions and a monthly subscription make sense.
The sale of cosmetics does not.
Paying extra and with those values for content that is essential and one of the bases of every video game such as aesthetics and customization is what makes millions of players around the world continue in search of the holy grail of MMORPGs.
I’m not gonna go find the whole schpeel from Steven but the entire point of opening participation at the start of development rather than the very end of it was to get the community involved from the get-go. That’s the whole point.
If you had read my last contributions you would have noticed that I comment on it and explain my point of view about it.
You made it pretty clear you believe they shouldn’t have advertised until the game is mostly finished, and at that point those core system are no longer malleable to change.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
Let me show you
¨However, with the premise of involving the community, the kickstarter program was created¨
You can read the rest, it's all explained there.
The Kickstarter funding was used to add additional content to the game. The fully funded project people keep referring was called the minimum viable product that was funded prior to Kickstarter. Steven wanted to add additional features such as enhanced naval combat, the Underrealm (without this, the race living underground would be added in a future expansion), parlor games, and other features.
You should browse the features on Kickstarter to see all of the additional features people paid for that you can enjoy. Do know that if any of these would delay the approximate scheduled release date, then they will be delayed until after the release of the game.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1791529601/ashes-of-creation-new-mmorpg-by-intrepid-studios/description
It is not a lost argument.
The fact that some perceive that I am the only one with this vision does not mean that I am.
There are notes written by entertainment journalists, videos uploaded to YouTube, threads on Reddit and many other platforms on the social networks where this line of thought is shared.
I shared some of these contributions during the development of this thread.
Users who support this thought and are not attracted to what is proposed hardly bother to come here to express it.
My contribution here is an opportunity for you to see something that exists and is real, nothing more.
Less users, less consumption, less money.
It is exactly what I tried to explain earlier.
There is no point in creating a kickstarter campaign to engage people and raise money for additional content when the main content is not even in an advanced stage of development.
Even 3 years later and the content shown is scarce compared to what was proposed, however the process began with the promotion of packages of up to 10k usd with exclusive content for additional content?
You apparently have some advanced degree in game design that guides your knowledge of the best time to start building game systems into an engine...
I know I do not, so if you do then I will defer to your opinion. However, assuming that you do not, you really don't know the best time to build systems and instead only know what you like.
The kickstarter ended up generating 3 million in addition to the 30 million already in place. 10% additional funding for the game is not something that IS should ignore. They have game designers, economists, and financial professionals figuring out how to make this project run. I am inclined to give them a the benefit of the doubt until they actually deserve such doubts.
Also, I am not sure where you came up with content is scarce compared to what was proposed. Did you find some detailed road map content development? Because they have been meeting almost all deadlines that have actually been announced for years straight. I have occasionally seen people claim earlier release dates that were never announced, but that is all I have found people site.
Regarding my vision on the development, what I say is that those 3 million generated with the kickstarter I believe that do not compensate for the potential losses produced in the future by the incorporation of exclusive cosmetic objects and a micropayment store.
17k users paying 15 usd per month, in a year it is 3060000 usd.
Do you think that there are not 17k potential users as clients who are against the sale of cosmetics and micropayments?
At least 3 million lost the first year, 6 for the second, etc.
Regarding the order of development, my interpretation is to use the funds that were already had to achieve the base of the proposed game in a robust way, announce in beta stage to capture attention and finish polishing details by showing the greatest amount of mechanics in operation , go to market without a store or micropayments, attracting as many users as possible, finance the development of new content by way of expansions (in this case with the money generated by attracting more customers by not incorporating micropayments and a store).
Model: purchase of base game and expansions, monthly subscription.
In the case of projecting the need to increase billing, generate donation packages of moderate value without offering exclusive items and compensating contributors with thanks, perhaps a personalized courtesy email and a segment in the forums for their mention.
When exclusive objects are incorporated, the community is segmented, it is not joined and the act of wanting to support is diminished.
Does this guarantee success?
Not.
No model guarantees success.
Success is guaranteed by the quality of the product offered and if it has the capacity to satisfy demand.
I know there are plenty of other's like you. There are plenty of people out there that think the world's flat too, doesn't make them right.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
The difference is that the thinking of flat-earthers does not affect the billing of a video game.
The thinking of people against the sale of cosmetics and micropayments yes.
You are right that is the only difference, your view is just as misinformed. Glad that we came to agreement.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
I don't think I used the word "only" but I give you a like for agreeing.
Your interpretation of using funds would be nice from our point of view but does not seem necessary to run a game and IS will choose what they think is most beneficial.
Under the current model, we do not pay for expansions.
As far as the exclusive items does, this game will be heavily involved in exclusive items that are gone after a time. Both in game and out.
None of this really matters. It is all a matter of preference for billing. Your initial ideas of other payment systems seem interesting; however, in the end IS will probably choose the option that is most likely to provide the highest returns. While Steven wants to make a great game, I am sure that he also wants a good return.
Arguing directly against the cash shop by trying to project it as a low return is unlikely to work. Whenever many companies copy one another, you can be sure that there is a lot of profit involved. That is what has happened with the cosmetic shop.
In addition to what the current pay model is (which is payment of a monthly payment of $15), you can also opt for access to a wide array of cosmetic items through multiple options.
The options are as follows.
1.) $15 per month, no additional investments.
- Base game, with potential to access to cosmetics developed in other portions of the game.
- Sets reference point
- Conforms to current pay model
2.) $15 per month, additional investment for specific cosmetics.- Within reasonable cost for players with additional income who wish to purchase cosmetics.
- Does not offer an in game advantage over players who do not pay additional costs.
- Conforms to current pay model
3.) $15 per month, additional box model styled investment (one time 60).- Within reasonable cost for players planning on invest a large amount of money into option 2.
- Permanently unlocks access to a large amount of cosmetics available from option 2, but does not give access to everything available in the cosmetic shop.
- Does not discard current pay model, but offers additional options.
4.) $20 per month, additional box model styled investment.Is this correct? I had a hard time working through the logistics of this.
You would just be buying something that is a valuable as any gear from the game. For me at least that would make me not buy it since it wouldnt mean anything.
Thats exactly what he wants.
He believes the cosmetics should be cheap
and easy to aquire that severly lowers Intrepids Revenue. Because he wants to change the business model of the MMO world. While ignoring the costs Intrepid has from all that really goes into a companies costs to run an MMO.
I believe they should be making money off of it as it keeps the sub cost down, keeps their employee salaries high for quality people, and Steven has already mentioned there will be ingame equivalent different "meshes" of most items in the store already available ingame, plus you're already going to have unique armors and costumes in the game.
I just dont see the point in lowering their revenue when it's required to maintain a healthy employee source and keep good people. An MMO is nothing without good workers, and good workers/coders/designers/combat devs are all attracted by good working conditions and a good salary.
Its basic economics.
"Literally take the worst things Eastern MMORPG's have ever done, magnify them and then put a paywall behind them as well"
The heck?
Humoring mostly.
I stopped playing SWTOR MMO after a few months when they release the cash shop. All the cool looking stuff was in the cash shop and nothing nice was added in the game. Went back into the game two years later still the same way. Part of getting the cool skins is getting out there with your friends and grinding for it. Im glad Intrepid are putting cash shop stuff in game too.
@Elder Soul is cordial and sometimes cleverly funny. I enjoy this thread even though I pretty much think everything of substance has been said already.
If this was a real life debate we’d be at the stage where we were done with serious business and are now getting drinks together.
I understand this but my intention is not to propose the model that generates the most profits but a model that generates profits without abusing a segment of the player base.
Microtransactions and the sale of cosmetics is highly profitable precisely because it seeks to fully exploit a real need, the capacity for visual customization within the game.
That is why it makes me laugh when they say that cosmetics do not matter in the gaming experience and that they are not a way to win, on the contrary it is precisely this that makes it so profitable.
This isn’t a “gotcha” question or trying to in any way invalidate your opinion. I’m genuinely curious where you draw the line at what you consider P2W.
Me, I think paying for something you can pretty much get for no cost and little effort to be foolishness and/or laziness. Even the completionist who needs to have “everything” is somewhat foolish. But if someone wants to throw away hard cash for nothing, bless them, they’re funding my hobby.
First, it must be taken into account that certain cosmetics are exclusive (kickstarter and store packages) and have a temporal time for sale, then they are no longer available, in these cases I doubt that identical versions or with color variations can be obtained within the game (if I'm wrong you can correct).
Regarding variations in colors or small differences due to added effects, the following situation is generated:
- What is the most attractive or convenient version?
- Which one best suits the need to create a certain stereotype (in the character, pet, mount, house, caravan) either for taste, role, etc.
- The simple fact that they differ in certain aspects makes them a different version, something key for collectors.
The answer is that depending on each one, the paid version can be the most attractive and of course, in the case of collectors, reaching all the variants is a goal.
Having these variants behind the need to buy packs (to purchase content and unlock the corresponding Tier for individual future purchases) is a major limitation in the quest to complete the gaming experience and gain the feeling of success.
Finally, clarify that when I mean that all content should be available to everyone without additional payments, I do not mean wanting to have everything but to have the ability to access everything.
The ability to access is the door to achieve what you want through merit, effort and dedication within the game, this does not necessarily mean that everyone can have everything, only those who successfully exceed the objectives set to achieve these contents.
I agree. Just because I 100% disagree with him on this issue, doesn't mean I have to dislike someone.
Sadly thats sometimes rare nowadays on the web. Thankfully though these forums have it far more commonly.
Just dont check the dps meter thread lol
There is no correct answer to a subjective question. If one item is black and another is gold, some people will say the black one is cool and the gold is tacky. Others will say the gold one is amazing and the black one is boring. Also, some might say it’s more work to keep an eye on the store to not miss limited exclusive items, others will say it’s more work to earn it in game even if it’s an achievement anyone can do at any time. It might be more convenient for a person with extra cash to just buy it but another person finds it more convenient to work on it in game than save up the real life money to buy it.
That applies equally to all cosmetics since anyone can be going for any kind of look.
Again, collectors make their own problems. Unless there is some kind of title or achievement promoted within the game for collecting, it’s ridiculous to call that P2W. You can’t make up your own win conditions and then whine about them. It’s meaningless.